argument137 『勇往直前小组』第一次作业linshao

linshaoUID：2338229

题目：ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason River will have more people for entertainment, and the city council need to increase the budget for improvements the publicly owned lands along the river. Careful scrutiny of the evidence makes the argument unconvincing.

In the first place, the author makes an unfair assumption that that less people use the Mason River for recreational activity are caused by that it is not clean enough. However, these is no evidence to show that. Lacking information about the reason why residents do not go to the river for fun. The mere fact that the residents rank water sports as favorite form of recreation is scant to demonstrate that they will have more recreational activity in the river if it were clean. Maybe the residents are more likely to swimming in the pool which was considered to be more safety, or perhaps there river is not suit for fishing for few fish. Without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot be persuaded that the worse water quality is the main reason for less recreational activity.

Another problem of this argument is that the agency makes plans for clean up river. However, even granted the agency is efficient in cleaning up the river, we still cannot get the conclusion that people will play more in the river. Common sense informs me that when a river is polluted, the negative image of it will remain in people's mind. If so, the residents may still unwilling to go to the river for fun.

Moreover, even granted there will be more people using the river for recreation, the suggestion that city council should increase the budget for lands is unpersuasive. There is no evidence to show that these places are need to improve. Is there lack of facilities? Or is there any demand from the residents? However, the author provides nothing about it. Maybe the people go to the river for fun just for a short time less than a day, so there will be no need to build any buildings . Maybe there is no use to pay more money on facilities because some individuals may invest in there like little stores. Without give us the true requirement of the residents, there will be no need to pay more extra money on the river.

In sum, the argument is unsound as it stands. To better support it ,the author should provide us more information about the river condition and the main reason of the residents' reluctance to play in the river. To strengthen it ,the author also needs to give us the exact requirement of the citizens along the river.

linshaoUID：2338229

ARGUMENT205 - The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.
"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
去年10月Belleville市在其中央商业区安装了高照度灯光，那里的破坏公物的行为几乎立即减少。Amburg市最近开始在其中央商业区安排警察骑自行车巡逻，但破坏公物的发生率并没有变化。由于高照度灯光显然是震慑犯罪的最有效途径，我们也应该在Amburg全市安装这种灯光。通过以这种方式减少犯罪，我们可以使本市重新繁荣起来。
1.       文中并没有直接证据表明装灯会降底犯罪率；
2.       因为没有证据说犯罪率降低是灯起的作用，它们可能同时还有其他措施，比如新法规，比如警察增多等等；
3.       犯罪降低了，也不一定能使城市重新繁荣起来，还有其他因素可能导致，比如经济萧条等等。


ARGUMENT34 - Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium, substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore believe that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones weaken significantly with age and that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors. But a long-term study of a large number of people has found that those who have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteopoross.
牛奶和奶制品富含维生素D和钙，这是骨骼生长和维持所必须的物质。因此很多人相信多吃奶制品的饮食可以帮助预防骨质疏松症，这是一种骨骼随年龄而显著弱化而且与环境和基因因素相关联的疾病。但是一项对大量人群的长期研究发现那些在研究期间经常食用奶制品的人骨折发病率比其他参加研究的人要高。由于骨折是骨质疏松症的症状之一，这一研究结果表明富含奶制品的饮食实际上会增加而不是减少患骨质疏松症的危险。

1.作者没有提供足够的证据证明，使骨质酥松症而不是其他的因素导致了骨折。可能有其他的原因

2.作者还忽略了导致骨质酥松的其他原因。不一定是牛奶导致的

3.其他因素：这个研究的具体过程以及对象的情况。

ARGUMENT25 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of Hopewell.
"Two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. The best way to improve Hopewell's economy, and generate additional tax revenues, is to build a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."

两年前Ocean View建造了一个新的市立高尔夫球场和度假旅馆。过去两年中，Ocean
View的旅客增加了，开设了很多新的商业，而且税收增加了30％。改善Hopewell的经济，产生更多税收的最好途径就是建立一个和Ocean View类似的高尔夫球场和度假旅馆。

1.没有足够的证据表明在Hopewell修建地方性的高尔夫球场和度假胜地会和Ocean View一样收到更高的税收和促进经济

2.此外，作者提供详细的说明Ocean View的经济提高是因为修建了市高尔夫球场以及度假酒店的结果

3.作者还忽略了其他因素：作者没有提供Hopewell居民的信息，可能当地的风俗习惯排斥旅游；此外，作者没有考虑其他更好的提升经济的方法，可能有更好的方式，比如厂办企业等来提高当地经济

ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.
"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."
15年前，Omega大学实施了一项新措施，鼓励学生对所有教授的教学效果进行评价。从那以后，Omega的教授开始给予学生更高的分数，Omega的学生成绩总平均上升了30％。未来的雇主显然认为Omega的分数贬值了；这可以解释为什么Omega的毕业生找工作时没有邻近的Alpha大学毕业生成功。为使Omega毕业生找到好工作，我们应立即停止学生对教授的评价。

1.没有信息说明30%的份数增长是评估教授效率的结果

2.没有信息说明是成绩缩水导致毕业生找不到好工作

3.其他因素：没有考虑是否有其他因素帮助提高Omega学生的就业率；没有说明让学生评价教授是否有好的一面

[ 本帖最后由 linshao 于 2007-7-20 23:30 编辑 ]

高加索UID：2246937

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason River will have more people for entertainment, and the city council need to increase the budget for improvements the publicly owned lands along the river. Careful scrutiny of the evidence makes the argument unconvincing.(这句不错，呵呵)

In the first place, the author makes an unfair assumption that that less people use the Mason River for recreational activity are caused by that it is not clean enough. However, these is no evidence to show that. Lacking information about the reason why residents do not go to the river for fun（这句话不完整哦）. The mere fact that the residents rank water sports as favorite form of recreation is scant to demonstrate that they will have more recreational activity in the river if it were clean. Maybe the residents are more likely to swimming in the pool which was considered to be more safety, or perhaps there river is not suitable for fishing for few fish. Without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot be persuaded that the worse water quality is the main reason for less recreational activity.

Another problem of this argument is that the agency makes plans for clean up river（这个topic sentence没点出逻辑错误，事实the agency makes plans for cleaning up river这个事实是不能称之为错误的哦）. However, even granted the agency is efficient in cleaning up the river, we still cannot get the conclusion that people will play more in the river. Common sense informs me that when a river is polluted, the negative image of it will remain in people's mind. If so, the residents may still unwilling to go to the river for fun。（驳论点说出来了）

Moreover, even granted there will be more people using the river for recreation, the suggestion that city council should increase the budget for lands is unpersuasive. There is no evidence to show that these places are need to improve. Is there lack of facilities? Or is there any demand from the residents? However, the author provides nothing about it. Maybe the people go to the river for fun just for a short time less than a day, so there will be no need to build any buildings . Maybe there is no use to pay more money on facilities because some individuals may invest in there like little stores. Without giving us the true requirement of the residents, there will be no need to pay more extra money on the river. （论证非常清晰）

In sum, the argument is unsound as it stands. To better support it ,the author should provide us more information about the river condition and the main reason of the residents' reluctance to play in the river. To strengthen it ,the author also needs to give us the exact requirement of the citizens along the river.

模版句用的非常熟练，所以论证语言显得非常专业，呵呵。
驳论点说的也都非常清晰，正文格式开头结尾也都非常正规，细节上精益求精就好。
p.s: 好奇的问一下，你模版背了多少啊？

linshaoUID：2338229

高加索，刚看了你的Argument，写的很好啊。

strontium023UID：2316968

At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."(开头似乎把所有的内容又完全重复了一遍，是不是有详有略，有些许改写和调整会更好一些)

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason River will have more people for entertainment, and(so顺承关系) the city council need to increase the budget for improvements the publicly owned lands along the river. Careful （careless？）scrutiny of the evidence makes the argument unconvincing.(本句不太理解)

In the first place, the author makes an unfair assumption that less people use the Mason River for recreational activity are caused by that it is not clean enough（by后可加that从句吗？读着有点奇怪）. However(个人认为这个however不太合适), there is no evidence to show that. Lacking information about the reason why residents do not go to the river for fun. The mere fact that the residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation is scant to demonstrate that they will have more recreational activity in the river if it were clean. Maybe the residents are more likely to swimming in the pool which was considered to be more safety(safe), or perhaps there river(the river there) is not suit(suitable) for fishing for few fish.(两个for 连在一起用有点奇怪) Without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot be persuaded that the worse water quality is the main reason for less recreational activity. （为什么这句要用两个程度副词啊？）

Another problem of this argument is that the agency makes plans for clean（cleaning） up river. However, even granted the agency is efficient in cleaning up the river（这儿是用的倒装吗？）, we still cannot get the conclusion that people will play more in the river.(讨论一下，我在写的时候也在想人们进行与水有关的活动到底可不可以用in the river啊？) Common sense informs me that when a river is polluted, the negative image of it will remain in people's mind. If so, the residents may still unwilling to go to the river for fun.

Moreover, even granted there will be more people using the river for recreation, the suggestion that city council should increase the budget for lands is unpersuasive. There is no evidence to show that these places are（好象可以去掉are） need to（be）improve. Is there lack of facilities? Or is there any demand from the residents? However, the author provides nothing about it. Maybe the people go to the river for fun just for a short time less than a day, so there will be no need to build any buildings . Maybe there is no use to pay more money on facilities because some individuals may invest in there like little stores. Without give us the true requirement of the residents, there will be no need to pay more extra(more 和extra 有点重复) money on the river.

In sum, the argument is unsound as it stands. To better support it ,the author should provide us more information about the river condition and the main reason of the residents' reluctance to play in the river. To strengthen it ,the author also needs to give us the exact requirement of the citizens along the river.
小结：本文结构清晰，表达通顺，但语言方面有时有点不流畅。个人认为有些地方需要讨论一下，因为我也不太确定。本人认为开头的部分有些过于简单的重复原文，结尾部分能提出自己的观点和改进，中间有点睛之词，值得学习。总的来说，修改过程学到了不少东西。

linshaoUID：2338229

谢谢 strontium023 !
我是全套模版来的,其实自己的东西不多啊.